Syriana

[andyfox]

"The most sympathetic major character (IMO) is the pakistani kid"

Every American in the movie was an a-hole. Even the "heroes," Damon and Clooney. And the higher up you went, the worse.

The reaction in the theater I was in was the same as another poster described: Dead silence at the end, no applause. (As opposed to two other "liberal" political movies I saw, The Silent Gardener, and Good Night and Good Luck, where there was a lot of applause.) Seemed the audience found the unbridled pessimism of Syriana depressing.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the point of the sympathetic character in the kid was that he was a pawn - it was a statement against terrorists, but it differentiated between higher ups, those who are true to the terrorist ideals, and those being manipulated. He was quickly sent off to die for the cause while his leaders stayed safe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your interpretation of the message, but contrast it to mainstream American culture's take on real kids like him.

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't entirely follow the Hezbollah role - how did they get treated sympathetically?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hizbollah saved Clooney's character from death and left the "Donate on your way out of town" postcard.

[Exsubmariner]

"contrast it to mainstream American culture's take on real kids like him."

Could you explain that a little more? I am not aware that there is a mainstream take. I personally pity kids like this, and I think a lot of people in America in particular have sympathy for anyone who is subject to manipulation under religious pretenses.

P.S. Love your books.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
"contrast it to mainstream American culture's take on real kids like him."

Could you explain that a little more? I am not aware that there is a mainstream take. I personally pity kids like this, and I think a lot of people in America in particular have sympathy for anyone who is subject to manipulation under religious pretenses.

P.S. Love your books.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I suppose it's not fair to say that there is a "mainstream American take" on kids like this. I think many Americans would, in theory, sympathize with the kids and blame their mentors. But I think a lot of that sympathy disappears once they actually commit a bombing.

And I suppose that's fair.

I guess my beef is with how a lot of propaganda mongers like to label things "terrorist" and demonize them when really there are tons of shades of gray to this whole affair. It really annoyed me when they started to go after online poker saying that it's a potential source of terrorist funding. And it annoys me when the official American policy WRT kids like the Pakistani kid in the movie is to lock 'em up and refuse to give them a trial and/or kill them whenever possible.

I think a real "war on terror" should involve real aid for the Muslim poor, not continued exploitation of them, a la Connex/CIA/Emirs/etc. That was the message that came through most clearly from the movie for me... and it's one I agree with 100%. US support for corrupt royals and amoral, poorly regulated oil companies is creating the terrorists. To spend hundreds of billions killing 30k people in Iraq for a "war on terror" while simultaneously supporting the conditions that breed the dispair among young Muslims is beyond incompetent.

[Exsubmariner]

Thanks Ed,
Your reply is certainly challenging. I can't disagree with anything you said. I think US support for corrupt regimes is amoral. When you start talking about the market as enabling conditions that breed terrorism, however, that really does get into some deep grey areas. When you throw out there the concept of "aid for the Muslim poor," that also is pretty grey.

With regard to the market; Yes, oil companies are in business to make money and it is in their best interests to make payoffs and bribes to officials who will happily take them. I don't know if that will ever be expunged from the market. You are after all, taking oil from countries where, to quote Matt Damon's character "guys were running around chopping each others heads off 100 years ago." The Middle East stopped being the pinnicle of civilization with the Mongul invasions. There has been nothing even coming close to the civilization that was there 800 years ago since.

Can I really blame oil companies acting in their own best interests? Do I and every other American who fills up at the service station and the US government who gets $0.43 a gallon in taxes share the burden of enabling them. I think the answer is inescapably yes, my lifestyle and my civilization creates that imbalance.

Would "aid for the Muslim poor" fix it? I doubt it. If you still have corrupt regimes in control, they are going to take the money anyway. Look at Africa. Aid to Africa is a failure. Geldolf said he was ashamed of the Live Aid efforts he headed because the money did very little or no good and in some case, made matters worse.

Aside from that, the instigators of terrorism are wealthy Saudi's funded with oil sales.

I think the real thing to do is to bring free market and Democracy to the region. This is an enourmous gamble. If we loose, our whole way of life is destroyed and the US will be thrown back into the 1800's with the rest of the West. If we win, though, we give the best hope to those poor kids who will get to participate in a free market economy and vote. They will then be empowered to help themselves and throw corrupt officials out of office when their best interests are not looked after.

That's the best I can come up with. I think it is the best that the US can come up with. I think that is why we are in Iraq. I believe the stakes are enormous. I hope it is not a sham and Democracy takes root and spreads and grows. Only history will judge. We ourselves are too entrenched in it to even quess how it will come out.

Best Regards,
X

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
The most sympathetic major character (IMO) is the pakistani kid, and Hizbollah gets positive treatment also. I'm surprised Time Warner was willing to be affiliated with a movie that "promotes terrorism" like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you never read Time Magazine?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
It's an intensely political movie, so I think discussion of it belongs here. And I've managed to get myself into a position where what I say goes. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Be that as it may, there is a thread in OOT on the movie. Although my politics are in sync with the screenwriter's, I didn't like the movie very much. A lot of activity, but no storytelling. Clooney and Damon are competent actors, but not more than that; they are not interesting enough to sustain a movie for me. (I think that's why I didn't like either of the Bourne movies either, Damon is a boring actor.)

And the "plot" was impossible to follow. You have to keep reminding yourself who the characters are, if you understood who they were in the first place. An interesting movie, but not a good one.

[/ QUOTE ]

My wife and I saw it last night, and it was not a good film. Not a terrible film, but certainly not a good one. Excruciatingly boring, no likable characters at all, not enough exposition to connect the dots clearly enough to draw the viewer into giving a crap, other than in some intellectual fashion that they already give a crap about the topic of oil and the middle east and corruption or they wouldn't be in the theater. Large parts of the film seemed to add depth to characters . . . along the wrong dimensions (dead kid, drunken father, prom discussion, etc). The subplot with the Pakistani youth seemed spliced in from a completely different (and far better) film. We yamned the whole way through and couldn't believe the film was as short as our watches indicated. If I'd had to sit through another 45 minutes, I'd have been yearning to have my fingernails torn out.